Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MeepoTheMighty" data-source="post: 400837" data-attributes="member: 3216">Because OAD&D has very narrowly defined roles.  There's no difference between Joe Fighter and Bob Fighter.If you ask me, the essential failing of D&D is that the classes, until now, were too narrowly focused.  In addition, there was no easy mechanic to resolve many of the non-combat things that creeped up.  Yes, there were ability checks, but there was no way to really improve your chances at succeeding in something.  What if you wanted to play, say, a fighter who could pick a lock?  Or a wizard who knew how to use a sword? You only have to consider those factors which directly relate to combat, if all you're worried about is running combat.  What do you do if you want your NPC to do something non-combat related?But don't you see how that could get repetitive?  I've played under a number of different DM's, but I've never once been in awe of somebody's ability to fudge.  Storytelling, adventure preperation, pacing, yes.  If I wanted someone who was good at pretending, I'd still be playing with the DM who showed up to one session on acid and took us through a rousing trip through the mushroom kingdom.Is 3E really COMPLICATED?   I mean, half the people who hate 3E say it's for drooling 12 year olds who want to play Pokemon with swords, and the other half of you think it's too complicated.  It can't be both.  I didn't have any trouble learning the rules, and I've taught them to quite a few others.  People who had never played before had no trouble understanding the basics, and 1E/2E veterans said "wow, they made the rules make sense!"</blockquote>

Verification